In which version is Russia stronger against the Axis, A2 or A3?

Jennifer, every single thing you posted about A3 was available in A2.  Everything.  You could have done Barbarossa every game before, you know…  You argued and argued and argued in A2 that Sealion was THE strategy for Germany since Barbarossa wasn’t feasible.  You strongly argued time and again that Russia alone can hold out against the Axis powers until America was done with Japan and could come to help out.  This was always wrong, but you always argued it.

The actual gameplay mechanics and setup have changed almost nothing.  How the hell is 24 INF in the East better for Japan than 18?  How the hell is 4 extra AA gun hits on UK better for Germany?  How the hell is a DD and TRN floating off Malta instead of in a concentrated fleet better for Italy?  How the hell is limiting Japan’s movements in the Pacific better for Japan?  Strategic options have been removed and you pretend this is a good thing.  The game is getting pigeonholed and you think it’s better…no you don’t, you are pretending you think it’s better for some reason only you know.

I was always more gungho about Barbarossa than Sealion throughout A2 and now into A3.  My playstyle and strategies haven’t changed much at all…I’ve basically always used subs for convoy interdiction to keep UK down and attacked Russia.  Nothing has changed to make this attack more feasible.  Nothing at all…except that now the UK player knows that this is my likely strategy.  Don’t try and pretend that you see something miraculous in the changes that somehow makes Barbarossa amazing!!!11…it’s still the same exact fight with minor changes to the detriment of Germany.  I suppose Sealion enthusiasts might be finding the miraculous new strategy called Barbarossa, but to me it’s the same but slightly more difficult to accomplish.  Barbarossa is now harder than before, it’s just the facts.

So to definitively answer the original question…Russia is Stronger now.

Shadow,

Yes, you could have and probably should have done Barbarossa in Alpha 2 instead of Sea Lion, but given the better odds, many people went Sea Lion instead and ended up sapping the Strength of the Germans to the point that Russia became impossible.

Why are 24 infantry in the East better for Japan than 18?  Because they are just infantry, and they are not preventing the Germans, unlike the 12 IPC were.  Japan has 11 Fighters, 8 Tactical Bombers and 2 Strategic Bombers.  That is almost 1 aircraft per infantry Russia has.  The extra guys will also probably not come into play until the Russian stack is decimated either through direct attack or by killing the blitz blockers left behind as it retreats.  I’d rather Russia get 6 infantry in the middle of no where than Russia get 12 IPC to use in directly blocking the Germans!

The limitations on Japan’s movement is probably a bad thing.  I would wager heavily that Larry did this because he is very pro America, continually making it a behemoth in his games and now Japan had a way to take it out early in the game.  By limiting Japan so they cannot get close to America/Central America, this tactic is removed.  I think it’s bad, I liked threatening America and forcing them to both lose W. USA and build ground units.  It was probably the only tactic that saved the Japanese from destruction.  The fall back option just delays the Japanese destruction and the best option so far, in my opinion, is to send all the japanese planes deep into Russia and get them on the German stacks, then over to Europe where you can suicide them into the Allied fleets. (Leaves you very vulnerable in the Pacifc, but the first time I did this it really unbalanced things for the Allies and the Germans were victorious via victory cities.)

I didnt say Barbarossa was “amazing” I said the changes made Russia weaker in comparison to the Germans.  If you only look at changes, then Germany got more added units than the Russians did.  If you want to look at strategies, the Germans were buffed up considerably due to the AA Gun changes.  It is now viable to risk your guns as a strategic move, instead of keeping them in reserve as a tactical decision on a round by round basis.

So to definitively answer the original question…Russia is Weaker now.  Actually the entire Allied game is weaker now.  The allies are in a vice, they have to send aid to Russia asap, or Russia will fall.  A dedicated effort of all three axis powers destroy Russia about 8-12 rounds in, unless the Allies help them turtle.

How is russia ever strong?
They where strong out of box but now you should be able to push em down easliy.

@wrath3:

How is russia ever strong?
They where strong out of box but now you should be able to push em down easliy.

Because many players used Germany to take England on Round 3 or 4, Wrath.  That reduced the Germans to a smoldering pile of scrap metal allowing the Russians early victories in Poland, Hungary and Romania which in turn gave them +9 IPC for the territories and +9 IPC for the objectives.  If you add a Japanese invasion, in Alpha 2, they also got +12 IPC to spend on units in the front rows against Germany.  THat quickly added up and is a major reason why I think Russia should get pummeled early and often.

Because many players used Germany to take England on Round 3 or 4, Wrath.  That reduced the Germans to a smoldering pile of scrap metal allowing the Russians early victories in Poland, Hungary and Romania which in turn gave them +9 IPC for the territories and +9 IPC for the objectives.  If you add a Japanese invasion, in Alpha 2, they also got +12 IPC to spend on units in the front rows against Germany.  THat quickly added up and is a major reason why I think Russia should get pummeled early and often.

This is a silly remark.  The consensus strategy has no impact on the strength of alternative strategies (strategies which I have always argued were better than Sealion anyway, such as my G2 Barbarossa).  Russia is not weaker now, they are stronger, mainly because the UK now knows it doesn’t need to turtle the first few rounds and go actively attack instead of passively defend - Russia should have always prepared for Barbarossa.  You might be shaking in your boots knowing your opponents will be executing Barbarossa on you, but I’m not.  I know the tried and true anti-Barbarossa tactical decisions necessary, and given that UK can now provide some semblance of oomph in the early game now, I believe Russia’s hand is significantly strengthened.  Russia gains all of the following:

1. Confidence that UK will be assisting them from UK1 on, not waiting until Germany has played their hand on G2 before taking the fight to Germany.
2. UK will be much more likely to defend SZ125 to insure Russia gains the +5 NO.
3. Japan has to contend with an additional 6 Infantry if they invade Amur.
4. Italy loses the Caucusus NO.
5. USA and UK have reason to go after France hard due to the American NO.
6. AA guns are of use only in defensive posturing.  Russia is primarily on defense, therefore the rule will primarily help them.  Classic Aristotle logic.

Moreover, it’s quite easy to look back on your comments a couple months ago where you were trumpeting the ‘Sealion above everything’ strategy exclaiming to all who would listen that it’s the only viable strategy Germany has - but nonetheless it’s impossible for Germany to execute in less than 11+ rounds.  Why has your tune suddenly changed?  The alterations are not in Germany’s direction, so I find it odd.  You’re passively admitting that Russia could always have been defeated by Germany/Italy/Japan quite handily before, and therefore your KJF strategy was never truly valid, as I had always argued, because in my experience Russia falls hard without help from UK/USA of some variety (FYI - the trick was a G2 Barbarossa, it made KJF relatively ineffectual since Moscow would have stacks of German, Italian, and Japanese Mechanized Infantry and Tanks rolling over it before America could pivot to the Atlantic).

Because a couple months back it was Alpha 2 and people had not figured out how to stop Sea Lion yet, so it only made sense.

Now we are in Alpha 3.  I see a much different universe than you do, evidentally.  In my universe England is castrated being raided to death with no fleet of any significant size.  Italians are forging a path to Moscow while the Germans sap Russian strength.  Japan is removing valuable IPCs in the east making it much harder for Russia to survive.

The only thing I have not yet determined is if a G3 attack on Russia is superior to a G4 attack.  Or if G5 is better for that extra 5 IPCs.

G2 is and always will be the best.  G2 Barbarossa –-> G8 assault on Moscow with ~ 40 INF, 15 TANK, 20 ART, 20 MECH, 20 Aircraft.

Purchases (most conservative IPC amounts possible)
G1: 7 ART
G2: 10 ART, 10 INF
G3: 7 TANK
G4: 10 Mech
G5: 10 Mech
G6: 4 TAC
G7: 3 STR
G8: Defensive builds for D-day and/or offensive to go after Cairo

Italy also has a good buy plan to assist and keep the supply lines open.

Yeah Jenn, I agree with Shadow on many things but you want to attack Russia early, not late.  That is what made Russia such a beast after Sealion, they had 4 rounds to build and position an army.  Attack early if you want to win.

@JimmyHat:

Yeah Jenn, I agree with Shadow on many things but you want to attack Russia early, not late.  That is what made Russia such a beast after Sealion, they had 4 rounds to build and position an army.  Attack early if you want to win.

Hmm.  I will most certainly try it.

Shadow, you are attacking France I assume?  Could you, please, post what you are attacking on Round 1 and with what?  So I have some sense of where units are coming from and going too?

@JimmyHat:

Yeah Jenn, I agree with Shadow on many things but you want to attack Russia early, not late.  That is what made Russia such a beast after Sealion, they had 4 rounds to build and position an army.  Attack early if you want to win.

Most people who complained about Russia were allowing them 3+ rounds of free purchases and the ability to position units anywhere they desired.  Of course Russia is hard to defeat in that circumstance.  Hit them hard, early, before they consolidate - pierce holes north and south to prevent the linking of units.  Every Russian unit NOT in Moscow on turn 8 is not in the fight.  You only need to capture 3 zones to attack Moscow (there are six possible paths - take the road less defended).  By G8, USA has had exactly 3 combat movements while at war - only the final round could possibly give them access to put land units into Paris or Cairo - they have had a maximum of two rounds to put land units into Rome.  You simply need to delay invasions of those three VCs until Leningrad and Stalingrad are secured (if they aren’t already by Germany or likely Italy).

Understood.  Here are my assumptions, tell me where I am off:

Germany attacks: Yugoslavia, France, W. France, SZ 112, SZ 111, SZ 110 and SZ 106. (or do you pull back your submarines?)

G1 (Purchase 7 ART)
–--------------------
2 SUB to Canada
2 SUB to 91
6 INF, 2 ART from Southern Germany to Yugo, 1 INF from Slovakia to Yugo, retreat all to Slovakia after one round of fighting
3 INF, 1 MECH, 1 TANK, 2 ART to Normandy
4 TANK, 4 INF, 1 ART, 3 MECH, 2 TAC, 2 FTR to France
1 BB, 1 CA, 1 FTR, 1 TAC to 112
1 SUB, all other aircraft to 111
I don’t bother attacking 110 - not worth it and they have no DD there.

NCM 4 INF to Finland
NCM 1 INF to Bulgaria
NCM 9 INF to Poland

G2 (Build 10 ART, 10 INF)

Everything from front attacks Eastern Poland.
Aircraft threaten Britain
NCM everything else to Poland (except token defenders

From here on in, check the number of zones you need to move to assault Moscow on G8…build accordingly.  Once Art/Inf cannot make it, change to Tank/Mech, once they cannot switch to TAC, then on G7 build STR.  Move everything into Moscow G8.  If Russia turtles and pulls everything into Moscow, you can just capture everything…if they don’t turtle you have enough concentrated might to capture Moscow anyway, and mop up afterwards.  Ignore Leningrad.

Nice.  Do you have Italy break the ground and Germany reinforce then?  That way Germany loses nothing while Italy loses a few men to Russian pickets?

@Cmdr:

Nice.  Do you have Italy break the ground and Germany reinforce then?  That way Germany loses nothing while Italy loses a few men to Russian pickets?

Yeah Italy does the standard can opener actions, and claims all peripheral territory that isn’t a VC. Italy also has to defend Europe along with all German purchases above those allotted to Moscow G8. Italy may or may not take Cairo…this becomes the critical fight if they failed.

@shadowguidex:

@Cmdr:

Nice.  Do you have Italy break the ground and Germany reinforce then?  That way Germany loses nothing while Italy loses a few men to Russian pickets?

Yeah Italy does the standard can opener actions, and claims all peripheral territory that isn’t a VC. Italy also has to defend Europe along with all German purchases above those allotted to Moscow G8. Italy may or may not take Cairo…this becomes the critical fight if they failed.

The real blessing of Italy is being able to take land for German planes, allowing the Germans to reinforce heavily.  So peripheral territories should be taken by the Germans, while the main drag (E. Poland Belarus or E. Poland N. Ukraine, etc) should be Italian.  I agree on the VCs since there are complexes there.

G2 Barbarossa is the best way to get started with the war on Russia. By waiting until G4 to attack that gives them too much time to build and deploy if you go on G2 they’ll have half as many and they wont be dug in to positions to counter attack
    Make sure you get France on G1
    It almost happened the other nite….one German tank left to occupy Paris on G1

I am contemplating a G3 attack, only because it would give me time to pull the units from France (Mech/Arm) to the Russian front.  Also, each round you don’t attack Russia is another round you get 5 IPC.  Something to consider.  (Consider does not necessarily mean you should or should not agree, just something to think about.)

@Cmdr:

I am contemplating a G3 attack, only because it would give me time to pull the units from France (Mech/Arm) to the Russian front.  Also, each round you don’t attack Russia is another round you get 5 IPC.  Something to consider.  (Consider does not necessarily mean you should or should not agree, just something to think about.)

You get 5 more IPCs, but Russia gets 13 more INF.  Try both and you’ll see the difference (G2 vs. G3).  The INF/ART stay in France; the TANK/MECH which will catch up to your INF/ART on the Eastern Front - you don’t need them until Moscow anyway.

@shadowguidex:

@Cmdr:

I am contemplating a G3 attack, only because it would give me time to pull the units from France (Mech/Arm) to the Russian front.  Also, each round you don’t attack Russia is another round you get 5 IPC.  Something to consider.  (Consider does not necessarily mean you should or should not agree, just something to think about.)

You get 5 more IPCs, but Russia gets 13 more INF.  Try both and you’ll see the difference (G2 vs. G3).  The INF/ART stay in France; the TANK/MECH which will catch up to your INF/ART on the Eastern Front - you don’t need them until Moscow anyway.

How do yo come to the conclusion of 13 more infantry?  I am not saying you are incorrect, I am wondering what your rationale is.

I am thinking of a one round delay, and Japan is not delayed. (Neither is Italy.  Only Germany needs to be at peace with Russia to get the 5 IPC.)

Russia spends 37 IPCs a round, that’s 13 Infantry more than before.  Each round Russia adds a wall of bodies to their defense, so the earlier you start to kill them the less there are.